Hurricane Sandy Latest Path Projection Jesse. As much as everyone is very excited about this (who wouldn’t want a break from the election?) I must note that several things have to happen in order for this storm to eat New York City. If you know anything about probabilities, a cognitive bias of sorts is that people overestimate the odds of outcomes that requires several things to happen. For instance, if for Z to result, it takes A, B, and C to happen, each of which have 75% odds, the probability of Z is 42%. And I don’t get the sense that anyone thinks any of the possible outcomes re storm path, storm getting stronger, etc. are highly probable. The only thing that does seem highly probable is the East Coast will get a LOT of rain, which will certainly mean flooding in flood prone areas.

Naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern. —C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

I had to spend most of the day tracking down hurricane lamps, unfortunately, so this Friday posting, as seems to be a pattern, will be abbreviated. I thought I’d take a quick look at the latest skirmish in the “War on Women”: L’affaire Richard Mourdock. (Mourdock is running for Senate against Democrat Joe Donnelly, and the excitement began with some ill-considered musings on theodicy by Mourdock in debate.)

Here is a more or less random collection of Mourdock-related twitterage from today and yesterday:

ABC News: Biden Scolds GOP Ticket For Not Having ‘Moral Courage’ To Condemn Mourdock, AkinTruthTeam2012: Tell Mitt Romney to stand up to extremism in his own party and take down his ad endorsing Richard Mourdock.BarackObama: Romney’s endorsement of Mourdock is just the latest example of the severely conservative candidates he supports. Jed Lewison: The president did at least 7 local TV interviews today. Mitt Romney was silent. I guess Richard Mourdock gave him a gag order.Steve Weinstein: Ladies in all states: Mitt = Mourdock & Akin. He will kill Roe v. Wade. Kill Planned Parenthood. Ultimately kill women. Vote.Sarah Reese Jones: Biden Slams Romney For Not Having the ‘Gumption’ to Condemn Mourdock’s Statements Ed Schulz: The silence from Romney on Mourdock and Sununu is simply deafening Slate: Richard Mourdock or Abu Hamza? Were these quotes from Islamic fundamentalists or social conservatives?Donna Brazile: Romney Refuses to Answer Questions about His Support for Mourdock Mr. Romney, where is your leadership? Greg Sargent: Is Romney refusing to pull support for Mourdock b/c he worries about alienating evangelicals? DailyKos: Romney campaign so desperate to change subject from Mourdock that they accuse Colin Powell of racismRachel Maddow: Akin and Mourdock aren’t outliers. Banning abortion for rape victims is the new Republican mainstream.

(These are in no particular order. I didn’t link to any civilians; from the twitter feed, most of the work by professionals was done yesterday, although partisan outrage continues to spread.)

Thing is, Donnelly has a record, too. Here it is (hat tip BDBlue). Take one example, “HR 3803 – District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” HR 3803 was co-sponsored by none other than Todd Akin (R-MO), the not undeserving target of a previous Democratic feeding frenzy when he became the Republican candidate for Senate after Democrats helped him to the win with $1.5 million. Here’s what analysts had to say about HR 3803 at the time. The Hill:

H.R. 3803 would criminalize abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Republicans say some research suggests fetuses feel pain at that point, though the science is inconclusive. D.C. physicians who disobey the law would be fined or imprisoned for up to two years. The bill also contains new reporting requirements and, under certain circumstances, civil remedies for partners and parents of women who have abortions. It would not provide an exemption for victims of rape or incest or women whose pregnancies threaten their health.

In case you are wondering, Representative Franks, this is what caring for women and babies looks like. Caring for women and babies is presenting them with true, unbiased facts as part of comprehensive program that supports a person no matter the choice they make.

Caring for women and babies is not forcing poor women (as 42 percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, and 27 percent have incomes between 100–199 percent of the federal poverty level) to have babies, and then providing them with no assistance feeding those babies, or making sure those babies are born and stay healthy.

I agree with Bria Murray. And I’d like to think that Maddow, Kos, Sargent, Brazile, Schulz, Jones, Weinstein, Lewison, and the operatives at BarackObama and TruthTeam2012 do also. But apparently Joe Donnelly doesn’t, because, along with Todd Akin, he voted for HR 3083. And if banning abortion for rape victims is one of your litmus tests for a candidate — and even if it is Maddow’s, it’s certainly not a bad one — Joe Donnelly doesn’t pass it. Donnelly too — based on his support for banning abortion for rape victims — is “extremist,” “severely conservative,” would “ultimately kill women,” and might as well be an “Islamic fundamentalist.” Making it unfortunate that the “silent” Maddow, Kos, Sargent, Brazile, Schulz, Jones, Weinstein, and Lewison lack the “moral courage,” “gumption,” and “leadership” to condemn him.* Ah well, the way of the world.

These people see women as an abstraction and blastocysts and fetuses as real, which makes it quite clear that they do devalue women and seek to control them.

How true, how very true, at least so far as treating women as abstract and devalued counters in the two party shell game. And for some definition of “these people.” See for example Executive Order 13535.

* * *

The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on. No doubt some new feeding frenzy has emerged by now; the exercise in deeply held principle described here is, after all, over two news cycles old. As far as the discourse goes, what annoys me is not so much the “any stick to beat a dog” tactics used by Democrats; nor the Jesuitical contortions required to figure out which evil really is the lesser, if any; nor even the strategic hate management that, faced with two candidates who would ban abortion for rape victims, holds one up as the scum of the earth, and the other as a moral exemplar. No, what truly frosts me is that the Democrat operatives who ran this little campaign assumed that nobody would check the record.

* Slogan of the day: Strike the Battle Drum of the Glorious 2012 Election Ever Louder!

NOTE * Caveating: Silent in the current controversy. But if (say) any one of these authors shredded Donnelly in some past post, why on earth be silent about that now?

Post navigation

81 comments

“Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel.” They already _have_ an apartheid regime in Palestine. What that survey really represents is a ‘code word’ poll for ethnic cleansing. Which has been extensively practiced by the Israeli government in the past. Societies tend to repeat the strategies which have succeeded for them previously, particularly when other options seem off the table.

I fully expect the Israeli government to engage in a major attempt at ethnic cleansing any time in the next generation. After that, facts on the ground would obviate such an attempt. And those in power there know this too. Policymakers in Israel are boxing themselves in, more or less deliberately, to a decision space where ethnic cleansing is the only possibility.

We are watching an ongoing crime in that territory priming itself for mass obscenity. This isn’t unique to the groups involved; just look at other instances involving mass communal racism and violence around the world in the present generation alone. But my point is the trajectories of belief and action there point _directly_ to an impending crime if one looks at comparable contexts. Of course, the world will do nothing, because, like, “None of my friends are Arabs.”

And ethnic cleansing may begin with structuring food supply to carefully calibrate brink-of-starvation status for Palestinians. From a leaked document, this article, which to me also reads like a template for our very own Cat Food Commission:

Opponents are focusing on the survey’s use of the polarizing word ‘apartheid.’ Semantics aside, some of the quotidian details are eye-opening:

More than a half of those questioned said Jews should be given preference over Arabs when applying for jobs in the government sector. And slightly under half favored legalized discrimination [against] Arabs, saying that the state should “treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones.”

Such attitudes are utterly familiar to anyone who grew up under ol’ Jim Crow. Most white folks weren’t haters, prancing around bonfires in sheets. They just sincerely thought that Negroes were a less advanced race who deserved their second-class role as menial laborers.

Fifty years on, such attitudes strike us as medieval. Yet it remains perfectly acceptable in the mainstream media for pro-Israel commentators to trash Muslims and their nations as ‘medieval,’ with the same implications.

What’s obscene is the political Kultursmog which insists that Israel ‘shares our democratic values.’ In fact, Israel has no equivalent to our Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Fair Housing Act of 1968. Jews and Arabs in Israel largely lead separate lives, and housing discrimination remains the law of the land. Those metastasizing new subdivisions in the West Bank aren’t called ‘Jewish settlements’ for nothing.

Sure, Israel shares our values — the values of Alabama, circa 1963, when George Wallace declared in his inauguration speech,

“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny … and I say … segregation today … segregation tomorrow … segregation forever!”

Israel only has one choice in a globalized world. It will have to be an aparteid country because otherwise it will be outbred in no time. That’s the age old standard for being an Israeli. Heritage. Not politics. Not even religion. The Palestinians and all the surrounding Arabs are closing in on Israel like a skin wound. Heritage will be sacrificed for politics sooner or later.

I know the rules – one may only opine on this subject on tiptoes and in bunny slippers.

Otherwise one is accused of being a .bot … what ever that is.

Yeah, this bot got up this morning, checked the headlines, and said… hey, what the hell, let’s stir the pot a bit on Naked Capitalism. It’s not as though I have many friends here.

Hell, I dont approve of the Folsom St gay parade [ truly evil I know]. I think white American business owners in Latin America are more humane and better for those economies [ Chiquita Banana excepted ] AGAIN – I am a truly heinous contributor.

So – as to genocide of Palestinians by murderous ethnocentric Israeli J’s…. oooh… poor babies… the Germans kicked them out of their country a long time ago.. so of course, it’s quite proper for worldwide J=ry to condone, aid and abet the murder of another group – Muslims.

Oh, of course there are the odd complaints, and a wonderful show [and I do mean performance] of dissent for such monstrous behavior of a group known for their goodness, talent and godliness… just look at the awards they give each other in every category… year after year!!

But I digress… this bot has a mission!

Until and unless we have a candid discussion of the muscle of this group – to aid, abet and defend the actions of their more, [ahem] STRIDENT membership – Americans will continue to swallow the media swill they are force fed on the war for Palestine.

My gosh, spoken like a Nazi right?

We are doomed, if we allow this bunch to continue to pollute this conversation with their legendary ethnocentric pathologies.

Have at it… yeah, kill Noe… shut him/her up.. ban this monster!! And let’s get back to killing Muslims!

On the one hand, I agree with your comment (and many others that follow). On the other hand, putting myself into the shoes of a minority group that’s been persecuted for 1,000’s of years, I can see another point of view, too. Consider this analogy: if an influx of Anglo Americans onto a native American Indian democractically-run reservation were to risk shifting the demographics such that the native Americans would lose political power in their own “safe haven”, wouldn’t you feel enough sympathy and concern for their continued protection that you’d excuse their implementation of discriminatory policies to guarantee their own “home rule”? For a small enough parcel of land on the planet — provided no one’s trying to expand it — I would/do. (I mean in principle — not like what we’ve been seeing with the “wall” carving up Occupied Territories and illegal settler activity gradually annexing sections of occupied land.)

I hope I would remain mindful of the historical record regarding “discriminatory policies” (that) “guarantee their own ‘home rule'”… The history of such policies, especially as enshrined into actual law, is not good. Including our own history with such policies and laws.

Once a nation codifies racial bias into law they’re on a well worn but ultimately marginal path. That’s a principle.

//A friend, with good sources in the Israeli government, claims that the head of Israel’s Mossad has made several trips to deal with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia—one of the results: an agreement that the Saudis would bankroll the series of assassinations of several of Iran’s top nuclear experts that have occurred over the past couple of years. The amount involved, my friend claims, was $1 billion dollars. A sum, he says, the Saudis considered cheap for the damage done to Iran’s nuclear program.

/At first blush, the tale sounds preposterous. On the other hand. it makes eminent sense. The murky swamp of Middle East politics has nothing to do with the easy slogans and 30 second sound bites of presidential debates.

/After all, nowhere more than in the Middle East does the maxim hold true: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And both Israel and the Saudis have always detested Iran’s Shiite fundamentalist leaders. The feeling is mutual. Tehran has long been accused of stirring up trouble among Saudi’s restless Shiites.//
———–
READ MORE at:http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/26/are-the-saudis-bankrolling-israels-mossad/

Oh, and Mr. Kline, please do keep in mind that it is the GERMAN “Victorian Reich,” (the House of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha under the fabulously created name of the House of Windsor), that sits on the throne of “England” – reigning over the “British Empire,” “British Commonwealth of Nations,” “British Crown Colonies” and the District of Columbia, Yale, the University of Chicago, and the Anglo-American Establishment Despotic Dynasties of the U.S.A., and that this Global Reich continues to claim–by all mean–whatever Blood, Soil, and Lebensraum it deems due to its gene pools dating back to the House of Welf (Guelph)-Este. It’s DEEP STATE, Mr. Kline: a Deep State of Psycopathy, enhanced by the “Uberefficient” Martial Genius in Economics+Politics of the Universal IG Farben Cartel.

I’m glad I don’t care about the election. The closer is gets the more hysterical people seem to become. While the Democrats insist that a President Romney would bring us another war beyond Iraq/Afghanistan, (cleverly forgetting Libya) while he rolled back civil society to the bad old days. The Republicans insist that another term of the Obama administration would bring about the apocalypse. Meanwhile the candidates try really hard to say exactly nothing. Which is what I expect out of lawyers, but not presidential candidates.

If America didn’t have a proven history of political hysteria I might be worried about the uptempo in craziness. But we all know President Adams was a secret British royalist, and President Jefferson was an atheist anti-Christ.

So America will be as fine as it can be. Just a little less rich but just as entertaining. Wouldn’t have it any other way.

“…another war beyond Iraq/Afghanistan, (cleverly forgetting Libya)” Also cleverly forgetting Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Lagos, Mali, and probably several more I haven’t heard about yet. We have troops in combat in a lot of places, mostly now in Aftica. Unfortunately that probably is not going to change whichever is elected, but maybe if it’s not Romney we won’t start full-out combag with Iran. Atleast not for a while. Oh, and I can’t resist mentioning that Obama DID NOT “end the war in Iraq.” He tried very, very hard to stay there and was finally unable to overcome George W. Bush’s accomplishment there.

Mourdock and Donnelly exemplify my theory about the move of American politics ever rightward. The commentariat likes to claim that it’s the Rs who move right with the feckless Ds following suit to cover their right flank. I contend that it’s the cynical Ds who move right forcing the Rs to move even further right to differentiate themselves.

How else was Mourdock to contrast himself with Donnelly on this issue than by his theological musings?

One other comment re: Lambert’s chronicle of the MSNBC/Netroots approach to this issue–

Does anyone remember a time when the goal on the Left was to create solidarity among disparate ethnic, religious and gender groups? True, the effort was often far from perfect, but that was the goal.

The folks Lambert discusses (I refuse to call them Left) specialize in dividing people into ever smaller chunks based on various demographic differences and pitching to them as many different niche markets.

Teh subversive “left” (electorate) is a coalition of people whose views and priorities vary across a spectrum, a narrower one than I’d prefer if conventional wisdom as portrayed in the corporate media is accurate. Getting a coalition of dirty America hating hippies to agree on anything long enough for a hive mind to develop is problematic.

The right on the other hand as a group are much better at thinking with one mind and chanting in unison and seem more willing and able to agree with their kin beyond just hating the dirty hippies. A pity really, since GOP policy goals are so toxic for those without trust funds and offshore accounts stuffed with plunder.

On the other hand it’s a tragedy as well that while teh left squabbles amongst itself (honoring the First Amendment at least), the corporate party that pretends to represent it fields a candidate which disagrees with teh left almost as much as teh left disagrees with teh right.

So, why are Mourdocks’s views extreme and why is carving out an exemption for rape and incest the more moderate view? This I have never understood. I say this as someone who is totally pro abortion rights.
When you start talking about making exceptions for rape and incest you are on shaky ground. Of course there are psychological consequences to having a child borne out of such violence, but you deny the psychological consequences of having a child that a mother is not emotionally and or financially prepared for either. Above all, this view seems fundamentally anti-child– what, a child should be born because the mother must pay for the consequences of unprotected sex?
The whole “debate” is disgusting too because, as Lambert makes clear attacking extreme positions of lawmakers is not the same as defending abortion rights.

Well I think Mourdock’s argument goes like this. Only god can create life. So if a rape victim becomes pregnant, that must be god’s will.
Opponents are saying but the rape had to happen for her to become pregnant, so he’s implicitly saying the rape is god’s will, and that that’s extreme.
Of course they could say any one of the following:
There is no god
Or at least not that kind
And even if there is, he’s too busy
And it’s none of his business anyway
Or Mourdock’s
Or anyone’s, except the woman in question
And the idea that a fertilized egg is a human life is preposterous.
But they dare not.
So we get this Kabuki.

Therefore such restrictions should only apply to people who buy the whole God rationalizes rape bullshit. I don’t want to know any of them… or at least I would prefer to be exempt from their sharia laws, this being a country that respects freedom of religion and all.

I never saw God on the ballot, so these assholes claiming to speak for Her should go fuck themselves.

Religion and religious beliefs are fine and dandy when they’re entered into and practiced voluntarily, but imposed by legislation? GTFO.

That’s really brilliant, GS. And hilarious. And the only way to stop the rightward slide is if the left “has some place to go.” Since the Democrats don’t want them, some other place needs to be created.

I take the percentage of people who thought that ObamaCare wasn’t liberal enough* as a proxy for the size of “the left” and IIRC it’s around 15% of the electorate. That’s not a tiny slice and is about as big as the Tea Party.

Well the author is managing editor of Iraq Oil Report http://www.iraqoilreport.com/ and appears to be based there. Regardless it’s interesting that the oil is coming out via a pipeline through Turkey, bypassing the Persian gulf or Syria.

Stoller has come a ways – from being just another Obama critic (though a pretty good one) to actually suggesting we choose an alternative – that, for me, is crossing the political Rubicon, alea iacta est, and all that. Without espousing an alternative, critics, in spite of all their sturm und drang, merely leave one with TINA, a guaranteed win for the duopoly …

Now he just has to get rid of that “can’t win” meme …

C’mon, Matt, any candidate on enough ballots to get enough EC votes CAN win – repeat after me, “can win, can win” there, now isn’t that better?

Hmmm – the “politics of courage” now where have i heard that before ….

The Stoller piece is excellent. It lays out a solid case for not voting for Obama. It is weaker in its case for voting third party. The real reason to vote third party is that they are the only place where you will find candidates who represent your views. Unless you are in the 1% or the elites who serve them, the two parties and their candidates are against you.

Matt Stoller states near the end of his recent article in Salon that “At some point we will face yet another moment where the elites say “Do what we want or there will be a meltdown.” Stoller then asks,” Do we have enough people on our side willing to collectively say “do what we say or there will be a global meltdown.”

Stoller goes on, a little later in the article, to say “We need to build a different model of politics one in which people who want a different society are willing to actually bargain and back up their threats rather than just aesthetically argue for shifts around the margin.”

But how is the internal logic of this new politics different for the internal logic of the old politics– if the choice is simply between siding with the old elites who say to us again “Do what we want or there will be a meltdown,” or our “new” supposedly alternative political formation, expressing the same internal logic as our opponents, when we say ” Do we have enough people on our side willing to collectively say “do what we say or there will be a global meltdown.”

What seems to be missing in Matt’s formulation, in my opinion, is an articulation of the constraints under which our new political formation must function if it is to be called new–and these constraints would be the foundation of our cultural message and vision in any future political mobilization.

Matt also adds in his Salon essay “that the task starting after the elections is to build a network of organized people with intellectual and political integrity into a group who understands how to move the levers of power across industry, government, media and politics.”

I would argue instead that only if we build a network of organized people with intellectual and political integrity who understand that guilt is the ruling emotion of our cultural message and only a self-critical democracy of the guilty can be truly democratic.

Let’s be clear: To threaten the above is to EXTORT. And this is not the only Extortion going on by Martial Male Despots in Economics + Politics. Extortion is a felony. We the People should ARREST Mobsters in Our Government of/by/for the People, in a Citizen’s Arrest.

Stoller’s idea that progressives should go the criminals one better in EXTORTION is weak.” Have progressives no ideas of their own? How about the following:

People, aren’t we SICK to death of EXTORTIONIST “STRONG MEN” in Our Economics + Politics Gangster System of Private Cartel “Government” in America?

We need a Doctor in the White House instead of a Criminal. ELECT:
DR. JILL STEIN PRESIDENT 2012: A Working Mom Who CARES About US.

(Brought to you by the Working Stiffs of America, Sick of Gangster Lies)

Well, maybe you’re thinking democratic revolution, whereas perhaps Stoller et al in the liberal cum progressive think tank world are thinking more in terms of the restoration of a new Progressive Party of kinder, gentler business interests– along with the social workers and professional “democratizers” such people always ensure are still necessary.

You know, kind of like the last time.

Does Stoller still work at the (at one time Pete Peterson accommodating) Roosevelt Institute? If so, possibly the constraints on everyone’s freedom are already apparent to him.

After all, it wasn’t that long ago that we lived under that approximate, if decaying, dispensation and many could well conclude it was better than what we have today.

I’m not sure how I feel about that. The devil I know, maybe. Although I do think the question remains whether we can, through the exertion of political will, actually go back.

Lots of the usual NC suspects responded on NEP on Stephanie Kelton’s post about Pete Peterson’s temporary victory. One brief shining moment. For anyone interested, F. Beard lives! And some commenters linked to a Bernard Lietauer video on the now recognized verboten wisdom. ‘Mustn’t change the system.’ He talked about the Chartalists (early MMTers) whereby the government issues the money creating full employment without inflation. And then Lietauer expounded on the biomass model and said virtually the same thing that an ecologist said here a year or so ago about adenosinetriphosphate. An essential nutrient (i.e.money) that stabilizes a diverse natural eco system efficiently through conservation and recapture. Clearly we don’t even approach such efficiency and democracy. Somebody please tell Pete Peterson that.

YVES, if you can turn this Manifesto into a C21 “J’accuse” cum “Freedom Manifesto” for PROFIT to Naked Capitalism, please do so. It should be useful to someone, and I hereby give you the first copyright to it, should you decide to avail yourself of it.

If this “Freedom Manifesto/Liberation Manifesto/Manifesto of Self-Reliance” can be a profitable, or potentially profitable, item for your conversion into “money” for deposit into the account of your NC Fund-Raiser this year, please follow through on my the first sentence, so that I may contribute financially or “in kind” to the upkeep of your Beautiful Baby, Naked Capitalism: The People’s Forum for Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in America.

Thank you. May the Living Universe bless you as you have blessed us.
LeonovaBalletRusse – Sunday, 27 October 2012

ZF, the “Biblical” area now claimed by “Israel” did NOT originally belong to “the Jews.” According to the Bible, it was occupied first by “Tribe” of “Abraham” (said to be “of Ur” his “ancestral home” even though he was born in an area close to present-day Aleppo), and Abraham was there honored by the High Priest of El-elyon (the Most High God) called “Melchizedek” (said to be the combination of “Melchi” and “Zadek”), who was High Priest in “Salem” which came to be called “Jerusalem” after it was officially claimed as a holy place of the Temple of the [Divinity] of Israel, later of “the Jews,” and latterly by “the Israelis as proxies for “the Jews of the world (even without permission).

The so-called “Land of Israel” was occupied a second time by Joshua and his tribes of “JacobIsrael” just after the death of Moses, who beheld the “Promised Land” inhabitated by Canaanites and other tribes, before their land was occupied by the metatribe of “JacobIsrael.”

During the Roman Empire’s reign and rule, this area was named “Palestina” and it was still called “Palestine” BEFORE it became target territory for Lord Rothschild Emperor of The City and the Political Zionists who came to claim the entire area stilled called “Palestine” in the 19th and 20th centuries. Their initially covert target territory was ALL of “Palestine” including “Jerusalem” which the Zionists called the “Land of Israel”– claimed to be “the land “promised by ****” to the Divinity’s “Chosen People”: Abraham’s and Isaac’s circumcised descendants, and later to JacobIsrael’s circumcised descendants. The “Zionists” — mostly European, many culturally-assimilated, “Jews”–made their claim for “Jewish Lebensraum” in the name of ALL of “the Jews” in the world (with or without permission). The original SECRET PACT to enforce the political WILL of the Zionists and their British Imperial Masters to be enthroned in Tel Aviv, was later revealed to the world as the “Balfour Declaration.” Full implementation of the Grand Plan for Zionist Lebensraum began to be accomplished through wars and acts of terrorism thereafter.

The Ha-aretz article only BRINGS TO LIGHT the GOAL of this Conspiracy.

With regard to Sandy, here is an advisory from a friend who is a meteorologist.

Although the worst case scenario is not yet certain, all indications are that this storm should be taken seriously. Take the appropriate precautions and listen to any alerts from public emergency officials in case of evacuation.

If you are in the affected areas, make provisions for power outages, disruptions to public water supplies, and flooding. Remove loose objects from outside your home as they can become projectiles in high winds.

I wondered what sort of coded messages the linked news headlines might reveal if you combine separate links into one single line. This is like listening to Beatles songs backwards to hear the truths the band could not publicly reveal. It is illuminating indeed. It may even be a new method of analysis of the “Link Field” so to speak — one that increases efficiency by quickly mining it for key insights the stories only hide, while relieving one of the tedium of actually reading them.

Here’s a few:

This is how scared you should be of a Christian if you don’t own a gun.

Fomer Republican official: Push Spain Jobless to 25%

Pill Fails to Cure Bahgdad

Citigroup Sets a Dangerous Precedent, Not so Good in the Details

This teen built his own tiny home to cure occupation

Wells Fargo sends refunds to some national wildlife refuges.

The mass media team up to target voters.

See if you live in One Beautiful Chart

Financial literacy has lost its perspective.

. . . anyway, if nothing else it’s a way to lay around and waste time, which is my favorite thing to do.

Not usually mentioned are the novel proteins that people eat and introduce into their stomach flora when they eat genetically modified food. The lateral transfer of these genes which can survive the digestive tract and turn your stomach into a pesticide protein factory when for example, you eat Bacillus Thuriengensis producing GMO corn, which is genetically modified to produce the protein that destroys insect digestive systems and is a toxin. It is in every cell of the corn and the corn products or the meat of the corn fed animals.

It’s your body: Why not learn about what you might be putting into it?

The second debate will take place at the Washington studio of RT (Russia Today), a multilingual television network funded by the Russian government. Free and Equal has said it will broadcast the debate live at http://www.freeandequal.org/live and through RT America’s YouTube channel.

Cspan decided to broadcast it pretty last minute on the first debate. The Free & Equal site says that a debate moderator will be announced on 10/29 and that more media may be joining.

It cracks me up that it’s Russian money that’s funding the transmission. After all the democracy games we’ve played in their country, turnabout is fair play :) And in both cases, the outside-the-system candidates will take their money and support however they can.

Johnson is antiwar, and no reason to think he’s got any issues with the Russians. And btw, depite popular opinion at NC, not all libertarians are the same. There is a pretty wide diversity of thought there, just as there is with liberals and conservatives (outside of the MSM). For most people those labels do not indicate strong ideological allegiance.

… for many people those labels have become more cultural than ideological, IMO, as most people do not take the time to evaluate their own beliefs and apply critical thinking to them. Good guys vs bad guys is so much easier. My people versus those other people is so much easier.

Valissa, Gary Johnson is a Career Politician, so he has the “edge” as “people pleaser” because of his years of practice performing in Office, in person and on TV, and as the Image of the MachoMan/Strong Man who can Stand Up to the Corrupt Opposition.

So, let’s see the “Fair and Equal” Debate between Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson include a lot of questions about HEALTH CARE for We the People, which requires detailed, specific answers, which will reveal the extent of knowledge and experience in the Health Care System held by Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

Also, let’s see questions about how “Good Health begins with Good Food,” and Why This Is Important for Famiies (Family Values), from the Point of View of a Physician Board Certified in Internal Medicine, who for years Practiced and Taught Internal Medicine, vis-a-vis- the Point of View of a Career Politician in this matter of huge importance to Americans Getting Sicker and Sicker.

Finally, let’s see the debate bring out the difference in the POV of a the “Working Mom” with hard experience as a Child-bearer, Homemaker and Caretaker of Household, Children, and Husband, who has had to performing according to the exacting standards of Medical Profession, vis-a-vis the POV of the Professional Politician and “Businessman” who may or may not comprehend the needs of Working Moms.

That’s a start toward Justice in Debates. Should there be also a Cookie Bake-off between the two Contestants for the Office of President of the U.S.A?

You are a much more passionate political supporter and evangelizer than I am Leonova. Jill Stein seems to have many good qualities and I can understand why people want to vote for her. I simply see voting as my duty and need someone to pick, and just need to have some reason(s) to feel OK about my choice. Surely I do not completely agree with any candidate, and don’t agree with everything Johnson says either. btw, Gary Johnson only became a career politician after he was a successful businessman. He is also an athletic achiever – triathlon, mountain climber, etc. He didn’t get ahead by simply schmoozing with the elite or the big money people, he worked hard in a focusssed manner. Personally I try and see the individual politician as a person, not a set of political labels.

I expect that people here at NC will be voting for different candidates and for different reasons. Vive le difference!

i agree with both of you, but it’s always a mistake to see in any person a solution to anything… i voted for one of these two already(not telling which)… but i’m afraid instead of turtles all the way down- it’s gangsters all the way down/or rather, the ‘overachievers’… i’m not one, so i don’t like any of them.. typical untermenschen tribalism i suppose

LOL… I’m not one of them overachievers either, and that’s exactly why I tend to vote for achiever types. I want the politician I vote for to be an overachiever as that typically means they take pride in accomplishing things and care more about policy (“if you want to get something done, ask a busy person”). Underachieving politicians, IMO, end up relying more on personality & ideology, schmoozing, cronies, and sucking up to financial supporters to make decisions. Naturally there will be many exceptions to those generalizations.

Emile Zola’s “J’accuse”, which I glanced at today,
had a traget audience that appears to be well-educated
people. The French is complicated. Although, language
evolves and perhaps some words and locutions/phrasings
are no longer common, which might have been
in commno use back in 1898.

Wasn’t it Gandhi who said:
“First they ignore you. Then they mock you. […]”?

Suppose we turn it around on them and adopt Step 2:
2. Then, we mock them.

It’s probably possible to mock without giving
the appearance of a smearing campaign …

ZF, you may see how the De Sica film of 1944 relates to our times by the text on the box from The Criterion Collection:

“In his first collaboration with renowned screenwriter and longtime partner Cesare Zavattini, Vittoria De Sica examined the cataclysmic consequences of adult folly on an innocent child. Heralding the pair’s subsequent work on some of the masterpieces of Italian neorealism, The Children Are Watching Us is a vivid, deeply humane portrait of a family’s disintegration.”

And not only that, but of the tragic “unintended consequences” for the hapless, innocent child at the mercy of selfish, incompetent “adults.”

Prof. Chomsky is at his intelligent, incisive best in this address delivered in late September 2012 in Massachusetts. The sound system was up to the task of making every word clear. The hour-long video chez Democracy Now is worth viewing in entirety. This may be one of the best “political” speeches ever made in America: a serious, dense indictment built through timeless art of timeless classical rhetoric delivering bad news to the People of the United States. This level of classical rhetoric, delivered with gravity and caustic wit is most rare in any era, and its an example of the finest “academic” discipline that should not be missed. This is an important milestone for Prof. Noam Chomsky and for our Nation.

On the one hand we have MMTers correctly pointing to the socio-economic potential of a modern monetary economy based on the sovereignty that the former Colonists fought to achieve – that of freedom to control and issue our fiat currency.
On the other hand, we have the MMTers all lining up against the most revolutionary piece of legislation to come down the pike since that time – Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s HR 2990, which actually SOLVES for all the fiscal fear mongering of the Peterson, etc. crowd – by specifically restoring that sovereignty over money to the people.http://kucinich.house.gov/uploadedfiles/need_act_final_112th.pdf
And yet we wonder, aloud, why is it that progressives don’t get the “money” thing?
It’s more than ironic.

That’s the way it seems to me. They’ve basically adopted a monetary system created in real time by the worst social elements in the putative “private” sector of which they are not particularly crital, slapped their own “MMT” label on that same model, and move on to promoting a really conservative labor agenda that we’re supposed to think is “progressive” because the government would sponsor it.

That’s a little reductive, but one of the scariest things I think I’ve seen, actually.

Yeah, they also mouth a lot of pieties in between trying to shoot you between the eyes. But so what.

I have no doubt actually of what it is that they want, which is the same thing that I want.
It is to use the money system to its potential to achieve the socio-economic objective of getting by in a free, open and democratic society.
As if it were OUR money system.

The more than ironic part is that all of OUR goals are “monetarily” achievable through a Bill presently laying on the table of the Congress Assembled.
When was the last time that happened?

To me, MMT actually ignores monetary sovereignty, even though it it a system based on that political-economic identity.

MMT is a system that accepts the private creation of money in a monetary sovereignty where democracy still rules.
MMT accepts that all money is lent into existence, creating a monetary asset to the issuer, the IOU of the debtor.
I believe this is because of the akin belief that ‘money’ is ‘debt’.
Money is not debt.
Money is money.
Greenbacks are money.
No debt.
You figure out the accounting.
It’s national equity.
The Money System Common.